I like the look of thew new Santa Fe, but I just don't trust the quality. Not one bit. The Rav 4 is a solid car and the CX-7 looks great on paper. So there is conflicting MPG information does the CX-7 get 16 or 24?

I have not seen the NEW Sante Fe but was impressed with the old EXCEPT for the gas milage. Also, the latest Consumers has shown a bit of a decline in Hyundai quality which is a bit disapointing. Still it could be the best value. We just got rid of out 96 RAV 1st gen Rav for an 06. I would say the 05 2nd gen Rav looked similar to the 1st gen but I really see little comparison to the 3rd gen except maybe to hood and lights. Our new Rav's 4cylinder actually accelerates nicely compared to the old. Its quite large inside, appears to have aura of quality about it and drives quite well. I do not know what Car and Driver did to get 16mpg but thats rediculous. Every other article I have read shows 20mpg+...and I am not talking about the inflated numbers you find on the window sticker! We are averaging that in pure city if not higher. Most periodicals on the other hand show the Sante Fe at 16 city and I know folks who can attest to that. Price wise and feature wise I can only say our 06 Base Rav was well eqipped....though the side air bags were an option. No doubt the Sante Fe is better equpipped. Our Base 4X4 was 22K +tax. I am unsure how that compares to the new Sante Fe. You can likely do better if you find a left over one. All in all Toyota will no doubt end up the over winner in quality, price and mpg. But Hyndai is making it a race....and the old King (CRV) is just about the appear.......

The Edmonds Comparator Specs section shows the 2007 Mazda CX 7 as requiring PREMIUM Unleaded. I didn't check the "total cost to own" figures, but that has to be a couple of extra dollars every time you fill up the tank. :confuse:

Hi! I am a current Mazda RX 8 owner and want to purchase a CX7 in the fall. I have driven the car twice and I have to say it is impressive! Actually performs better than my automatic RX 8. This will be my 3rd Mazda. I have had many cars along the way and by far Mazda tops the charts with it's handling and fun to drive factor! The Toyota's are a little bit more reserved driving so it depends on what you like. Acura is a second in my books especially for it's reliablility. You can't top the quality for Mazda's prices....the 3, the 5 are both awesome cars though I felt the 6 was a little pricey by about $2000. The CX7 is rated at 19mpg for the city...which probably means about 18 depending on how you drive. My RX8 gets about 17mpg. Wish the CX7 would break the 20 mpg mark but when you drive this baby you won't care! Unbelievable power and handling for it's size! 4 cyclinder turbo was awesome. No body roll on the twist and turns, better off the line...my RX8 likes the higher RPMs so it's slower off the line than the power kicks in. The CX7 is tuned so it likes the lower RPMs and you get off the line quickly which I prefer. Definitely go drive the CX7....you will want one! It's got a cool stance to it and cool features for a top the line one. Low end $24,600.....high end $33000. Not too bad for a car like this!!!

1. 4 cylinder turbo engine vs available V6's This is by far the quickest four cylinder I have ever owned!It comes down to a balance issue; if you had a six in it, the weight ratio would be a beast.

2. Premium fuel requirement You CAN run lesser grade in the CX-7 during emergencies, but it's not recommended, but hey, I feel your pain on that one.

3. shortest of the three vehicles I don't know what to say about this one, other than the CX-7 is perfectly balanced.

4. Lowest front headroom At 6' 4", I can tell you that if the CX-7 had a headroom issue; I'd be the first to acknowledge it! I get in and out of my Cx-7 with no problem, and since I have the tech package WITH the moonroof, I should be hitting my head constantly right? Wrong! I have plenty of space between the ceiling and the top of my baseball caps!

Bottom line: try the CX-7 before you cancel it out, you might just be surprised.

As for me; the Murrano was too bulky and top heavy, and I'm not a fan of the CVT, more options brought the price up... waaaay up!

The Santa Fe, I hate to say is a question mark on reliabilty. I'm not saying anything bad about it, I'm just saying I question it.

The Rav4 just left me as a bland shot in the dark at it's big brother the 4runner... plus way too crampy for me.

All in all, for the money, I couldn't have done better than the CX-7, I enjoy the ride in it, and I hate the premium fuel!

AbstractThe attractive 2007 Santa Fe shows marked improvement over the last generation vehicle. The 3.3-liter V6 was plenty peppy and whisper-quiet in most situations. The ride, while notably firmer than the last model, absorbs most bumps and road imperfections with aplomb. The cabin is roomy, comfortable, and extremely quiet. Interior fit and finish is very good.

OverviewThe ride is certainly stiffer than the last generation Santa Fe. As it turns out, this is not a bad thing, as the redesigned suspension has improved the truck's handling aspects, reduced bottoming-out, and has given it a more solid, carlike feeling. Larger bumps penetrate audably only because of an otherwise Lexus-silent cabin.

Handling was fairly responsive for a vehicle of this vein, and the super-tight turning circle made parking a cinch. Standard stability control should keep it in check during the more aggressive maneuvers. Braking performance on dry pavement was excellent overall.

The 242-horsepower, 3.3-liter V6 and five-speed automatic transmission make a quiet, refined, and powerful pair, though there can be a slight hesitation to down-shift in certain situations. EPA-rated fuel economy is 24 on the highway and 19 in the city on regular unleaded gasoline.

The interior finish is light-years ahead of the old Santa Fe. Soft-touch materials grace key surfaces and most interior plastics are solid, finely-textured, and tastefully executed. The wood-grain trim, while obviously faux, adds color and isn't as gaudy as it appears in some images. Fit is another strong point, as components were flushly placed and sharp edges were absent. The cloth seating upholstery felt both soft and durable, while also being attractive.

Legroom, both front and rear, is noticeably improved, with plenty of footspace at all outboard seating locations. The tilt-and-telescoping steering wheel and intuitive, pump-type manual seat controls (similar to the mechanisms used in the Volkswagen Touareg) proved very helpful in finding the ideal driving position. Seat comfort was also very good, with markedly enhanced side-bolster support. Some of the tallest drivers may wish for just a touch more thigh support. Three adults can fit comfortably in the rear-seats. Ingress and egress for both the front- and rear-seats is very easy, though seat height renders entry a bit more difficult than a typical full-size minivan; a bit easier than most SUVs.

Ergonomics were excellent; controls were extremely straightforward and easy to see and use. The cool, violet-blue illumination of most displays and switchgear is a very nice touch, as it effectively adds to the already more upscale atmosphere of the cabin. Display contrast is satisfactory. The black dash and steering wheel reduce windshield glare. The steering wheel audio controls include a &#147;seek&#148; feature.

Cargo space is also appreciably increased. The 60/40-split rear seats folded easily &#150; forming only a slight incline when lowered completely. There is a very sizeable underfloor storage bin residing behind the rear seats. A removable, organizing separator is included. A tool tray is positioned aft of the storage bin. The liftgate is light, yet it feels solid; the integrated center high-mounted stoplight utilizes LEDs. The glass does not open separately. Maximum load was rated at 930 lbs. (1,095 lbs. with the Touring Package); max towing at 3,500 lbs., when properly equipped. A single tow hook resides under the front bumper.

I was prepared to buy a RAV4 but disappointed with the truck-like handling (body roll, etc.) I also drove the Murano, and the CX-7 driving experience was leagues better. You should drive the CX-7 before you choose. I'm 6-4, 250, and very comfortable in CX-7.

We have folks who are going to compare the CX-7 to the Acura RDX. Since Acura decided to use a similar 2.3l 4 cyl. turbo it should make for some interesting comparisons. Acura announced their prices today...base RDX starts at $33,610

My last 2 purchases were Hyundai's, including a 2005 Santa Fe. Went to trade in my 2003 Tiburon on the 07 Santa Fe, and didn't like the offer I got. Was driving by the Mazda dealer, saw the new CX7. Took it for a test drive and drove it home. This is much more sporty to drive than the Santa Fe, and better, Mazda beat the trade in offer on my Tiburon. Even though the CX7 has a 4 cyl engine, it is way more responsive than the heavier 6 in the Santa Fe(either my 05 or the 07 I test drove) and seemed to hold the road better as well. Don't just compare spec's before you rule out the CX7, it's more than the sum of it's specs. Comfortable, roomy, and as responsive as my Tiburon was.

6'4" here. RE MPG, both are gas guzzlers. Interior Room: a wash, I fit in both.

Interior accommodations and quality: Compared to the CX7, the Santa Fe is primitive. Hyundai doesn't offer Nav nor does it offer Satellite radio. Hyundai does not offer premium audio like CX-7 offers. Security features on Santa Fe are minimal compared to CX7. Leather seating in Hyundai is inferior quality compared to CX7. Also, Sante Fe design is very dated (at least 5 years). Accelleration seemed to be the same in both.

Granted comparing a 2004 with a 2007 is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges, but I've looked at the current Santa Fe and walked away wondering why Hyundai is stuck 1st gear. CX7 is far superior.

strange. i thought CX7 was just another bad CUV. santa fe looks better IMO, and so far every mag i've read was high on santa fe, and wasn't too big on cx7. well mags aren't always right though.

anyway, i had a chance to drive cx7 when my GF was shopping for mazda 3 or civic. i was never a fan of mazda except mazda 3 and miata. i don't like mpv, i hate rx-8, and 6 is so-so.

anyway cx7 looks boring compared to what i've seen on pics. when it first came out on pics, i thought it looked great, but in person, it turned me down. i don't like the cheap looking altezza tail either, and the there is an awkwardness in the side profile. front looks good in an aggressive way, but lacked detail IMO.

i don't remember in every details of my brief test drive couple of months ago, but i remember i wasn't impressed at all. maybe too sporty for my taste? the experience was kinda like what i had with mazda 6.

i haven't test drive a santa fe yet. i wanted to but my dealer only has 2.7

i would spend few grand more to get a murano over outrageously expensive cx7. maybe that was one of the biggest reason it turned me off. santa goes over 30k too, but i'm sure you can get an awesome deals on santa later.

On gas mileage, there seems to be quite a difference between the RAV4 and the CX-7. The 6 cylinder RAV 4 gets 21/28. The CX-7 (and the Sante Fe) get 18/24 on premium. (Using regular when the specs call for premium is not smart). While this difference seems small, it is indeed substantial over time. If one drives 15,000 miles per year, driving 50% city/50 highway, I came up with a difference of about $600/year. You keep the car 5 years and that comes to $3000. This will be true if, IF, the Chinese stop increasing their demand for oil and the U.S. government does nothing to stop climate change and the price of gas remains the same. Of course those things will not happen and the price will continue to rise, meaning the difference could be around $4000 and a big difference in emissions.

I've been shopping for 6 or 7 months now, for my next car. Until yesterday I drove a 98 Volvo S70. I'm 56 and felt it was time for a more interesting ride. I'm a real active guy, karate teacher, weight lifter, kick boxing instructor, high school teacher, track coach, back packer etc.... and felt the S70 was comfy, nice to look at, but boring. So I narrowed the field to the Murano and CX-7. The Murano had lots of room, but sort of felt heavy. Love the exterior looks, but the interior was sort of boring. I also drove an FX35 and a Caddy SRX. Looked at all the GM products as well as the Fords, Honda, Toyota, Lexus and Chrysler Pacifica. Nothing caught my eye or emotions. I also didn't want a nuclear blast to my finances....But... I wanted a new car, that looked cool and felt cool. I also wanted a little more room than a sedan. Then I saw the CX-7. I LOVED what I saw. A great look. I waited for a test drive for a few months and finally had my chance last month. WOW!!! I was sold. Went to a Mazda dealership yesterday that had the color and options I wanted, and 1 1/2 hours later, I drove out with my new Red Copper Mica GT CX-7. Sand, leather interior and Tech package. I love it!!!!!! I make enough money not to care about the extra hundred or two a year the gas might cost me. This is one hell of a crossover SUV. All the room I need. I have two kids, 13 and 17, and they love the back seats. Handling is fantastic as is the performance. Very exciting engine. Feels like a 6, not a 4. The Turbo is cool as hell. It's only the second CX-7 I've seen on the road in my area, so I finally have a car that you don't see every 30 seconds. LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT!!!!

i would spend few grand more to get a murano over outrageously expensive cx7

This guy can't be serious! where is the CX-7 "outrageously expensive"?!?!?!?If you compare the cars side by side, amenity to amenity, you'll see the CX-7 comes out way ahead on the bang for buck scale. There is a debate on which car you like, which is fine,we all have our own opinions, but qualify your remarks with something other than "i don't remember in every details of my brief test drive couple of months ago"...

"Interior accommodations and quality: Compared to the CX7, the Santa Fe is primitive. Hyundai doesn't offer Nav nor does it offer Satellite radio. Hyundai does not offer premium audio like CX-7 offers. Security features on Santa Fe are minimal compared to CX7. Leather seating in Hyundai is inferior quality compared to CX7. Also, Sante Fe design is very dated (at least 5 years). Accelleration seemed to be the same in both.

Granted comparing a 2004 with a 2007 is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges, but I've looked at the current Santa Fe and walked away wondering why Hyundai is stuck 1st gear. CX7 is far superior."

Just a few things to note: the '07 Santa Fe (as indicated by the thread title) is a completely different, far superior vehicle to the last generation models that you and I drive. Fit & finish is much improved, and I think you'll find the new interior, while very different in appearance, to be constructed of materials that are at least as good as the Mazda.

I'm not really sure what you meant by "security features," but if you're referring to safety devices, the Santa Fe meets or beats the CX-7 on all of those fronts as well, even offering standard active front-seat head restraints that are unavailable on the Mazda.

As to the availability of satellite radio and a navigation system, the former will be standard later this year (XM) and the latter will be offered sometime next. A ten-speaker Infinity ® logic 7 surround sound system is available on the Limited trim; it includes a subwoofer and 605-watt external amplifier. Also note that the Hyundai's DVD entertainment system is currently available, whereas it is not on the Mazda. Bluetooth hands-free phone connectivity will be offered this fall.

I did -- note the "delayed availability." I didn't intend to suggest that it won't be available, only that it isn't just yet (so, not a knock on the vehicle - I actually quite like the CX-7!).

But yeah, on the fuel economy: 19/24 for the CX-7 FWD and Santa Fe 3.3 (FWD & AWD), and 18/24 for the CX-7 AWD. I'm sure there won't be any perceivable difference between them in real-world driving, though. Of course those are just EPA estimates....